« | »

UAW Get 55% Of Chrysler For Concessions

From the Wall Street Journal:

UAW to Get 55% Stake in Chrysler for Concessions

APRIL 28, 2009


The United Auto Workers union would eventually own 55% of the stock in a restructured Chrysler LLC under the deal reached by the union and the auto maker, according to a summary of the agreement that was reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.

Fiat SpA "eventually" will own 35%, and the U.S. government and Chrysler’s secured lenders together will end up owning 10% of the company once it is reorganized, that summary said…

According to the summary, Chrysler will also issue a $4.59 billion note to the health-care trust fund that the union will manage for retired workers. The agreement said Chrysler will pay $300 million in cash into the trust fund in 2010 and 2011, and increasing amounts up to $823 million in the years 2019 to 2023.

The trust fund will own a "significant" amount of Chrysler stock and will be allowed to appoint a representative to Chrysler’s board, the summary said.

"While we realize the proposed sacrifices for UAW members are painful, we fought to maintain our wages, our health care and our jobs," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger wrote in a letter with the summary. The UAW summary also said the accord would provide the union with regular updates from the company on its long-term strategy and product plans.

In a separate agreement that paves the way for Chrysler to meet the U.S. Treasury Dept.’s deadline for a viability plan, Daimler AG said it agreed Monday to give up its remaining 19.9% stake in Chrysler LLC and pay as much as $600 million into the auto maker’s pension fund…

If you dust off your history books you will see that unions in Soviet Union were just like these ‘new’ UAW GM/Chrysler/Government combine.

What a coincidence, huh?

"While we realize the proposed sacrifices for UAW members are painful, we fought to maintain our wages, our health care and our jobs," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger wrote in a letter with the summary.

They really are shameless.

Was 55% of the company and having their benefits and retirement guaranteed by the US taxpayer not enough?

This article was posted by Steve on Tuesday, April 28th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

14 Responses to “UAW Get 55% Of Chrysler For Concessions”

  1. pdsand says:

    If it weren’t for the implicit or explicit, whichever, guarantee of government backing of the fresh disaster that will be Chrysler, I would say they got what they deserved. Got sold a lemon, perhaps.

    And of course, they have once again demonstrated the liberal fallacy that the purpose of a company is to provide jobs.

    It’s interesting to think how this all played out. The UAW will now own the majority of Chrysler. The company will still be a miserable failure, and factories will still close, and jobs be lost. The UAW will play ball with the government and turn out lawn mowers, so the customers will not be better served. The stock is, I’m sure, worthless so the pension fund won’t necessarily benefit. The employees and the company are now royally screwed. The only party to benefit is the union, which will gain power because of it’s stock in the company. Funny how that worked out.

    • proreason says:

      An accurate assessment, pd, except that the big winner is The Morons Criminal Cabal (TMCC).

      In one fell stroke, they:
      – paid off the UAW for strong-arming millions of voters
      – punished the capitalists who invested the money they stole from Rev Wright’s congregation
      – guaranteed the future of electric cars by giving the business to people who hate customers
      – guaranteed that you and I will be paying for UAW jobs and pensions for eternity
      – and sent a signal to the markets that any business that doesn’t toe the Moron’s line will be knee-capped

      But it’s good to know they don’t feel comfortable beheading the exectives yet.

    • pdsand says:

      True, I forgot to mention the big winner is always the government, but that’s a constant with Obama.

  2. GetBackJack says:

    I repeat from the previous post …


    They’re our last line of defense against enemies foreign and domestic, against the usurpation of our Constitution (it’s OURS, you know) and our last line of defense against stealth conversion of private property into public holdings.

    WHERE’S OUR VAUNTED MILITARY???? Why are they sitting this out????

  3. catie says:

    Well Jack, they just can’t mount an insurrection can they? I don’t understand why you’re picking on them. What is this “WHERE’S ARE VAUNTED MILITARY?” question. Here’s some news for you, this isn’t the Caine Mutiny. What do you suggest, a Coup?

    • GetBackJack says:

      Well, Catie … this is not a Forum for arguing between one another. But if you’d like to continue this off-stage, please contact me. In the event you don’t care to, maybe I’m not the citizen I imagined myself all these years to be … my interpretation of our military is that they are sworn first to uphold and defend the Constitution of The United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

      If a Chavez-styled nationalization of private industry and redistribution of private equity, private capital and private property isn’t a clear and present danger to the Constitution, then maybe I need to move a nation which is currently respecting and protecting capital and property, like Communist Red China …heck, their tax rates are less than half ours.

      I’m damn sure not gonna list a series of specious bona fides here to impress how much I’ve admired our men and women in uniform, but if the sons of unmarried parents who who are in Command Authority of our military are going to sit this one out, I’d sure like to know why. Wouldn’t you?

      And lastly, do your imagine that all our military can do is violence? That’s an incredibly dim view of the institution. They are sworn. The Constitution is clearly under siege. I believe you should explain why you imagine our military personnel should sit on their hands with zipped lips.

    • catie says:

      Wow, you’re really a spectacular person and far be it from me to question you, who knows so much. You’re the one with the dim view of our military. Since you say you’ve admired that means you haven’t served. I have, I’m married to one who does. Get over yourself.

    • Howard Roark says:

      At first after reading this exchange, I was satisfied to let Catie make her point and be done with it, but after re-reading GBJ’s post, it sounds like he’s rather serious about his point of demanding that someone explain to him why, the sons of unmarried parents who who are in Command Authority of our military are going to sit this one out, I’d sure like to know why. Wouldn’t you?

      You really don’t understand how the military works, do you, Jack? I mean, you have it half right, in that we are duty-bound to uphold defense of the Constitution. But therein lies the answer that apparently eludes you: it’s the “duty” wordy thing. Perhaps you don’t understand that the military won’t move an inch unless their chain of command tells them to do thusly.

      In other words, just because someone named GetBackJack is having a temper tantrum in his air conditioned civilian world, doesn’t mean that the Armed Services will be deployed to make his life more happy. Sorry, but just screaming WHERE’S OUR VAUNTED MILITARY???? doesn’t do it for men with assault rifles at the ready around the world. See, we soldiers take a dim view of civilian outbursts like this. We’re used to listening to our platoon sgt’s, our tops, our command sgt major’s, and our batallion commanders, who wear a look of steely resolve, instead of what you’re displaying, here.

      If you’re indeed serious about having the military come back here to rescue our Constitution, then you need to be a little more methodical about it, and try for once to look at life from the eyes of an average infantry soldier like I was. But, then again, people who squeal nonsense like yours will never understand our oath.

      By the way, this is a non sequitor: And lastly, do your imagine that all our military can do is violence? That’s an incredibly dim view of the institution. They are sworn..
      Damn right we’re sworn–to do VIOLENCE, my friend, and don’t ever forget it. We do other things, sure, but they are all duties that are in support of our ultimate mission: battle. We’re not just some “meals on wheels” program, or silly humanitarian agents.

      Don’t try to educate Catie about what our oath meant–she already did her part–have YOU?

    • Warmonger Infidel says:

      April 28, 2009 at 6:59 pm

      I don’t post often anymore, mostly just read, but your rant here and on another thread deserves a response from a 27 year Seabee.

      You may want to read the actual oath of enlistment/appointment so I’ll do your homework for you and post it here. It’s an oath I proudly took seven times during my career and many others here have taken it also:

      “I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”

      Notice the area I placed in bold. Let it sear into your memory forever. We don’t swear to obey the orders of a President we agree with, we swear to obey the orders of The President. Got that now?

      You’re little rant insulted every member who is serving now or has ever served honorably. If you think the answer to your problems is moving to the PRC if our warrior heroes don’t do as you ask by violating their oath, then by all means don’t let the door bump your ass on the way out. I’ve got some other news for you. I’m still working at the ripe old age of 63….in foreign countries. Yep, I’m an expat working as a contractor for our government. Lately my assignments have been to FSRs, Former Soviet Republics and Soviet states. You think it’s bad here. You don’t know bad. But most of the civilians I’ve come to know in my work and travels know they have it better than they did under the Soviets and love their countries very much. Do they have bad rotten politicians screwing them every chance they get? Sure. But the KGB isn’t at their door and they know freedom is good, even if imperfect. You might want to think about that before booking that flight to the PRC.

    • Gila Monster says:

      Well stated WI and a hearty thank you for your honorable service.

      GBJ, this isn’t some third world shyte hole with annual coups to overthrow those in power. The US Military serves this country with honor and integrity but that service doesn’t include usurping the legal inherent power of any branch of our civilian government.

      Military coups are just too “banana republic” or “third world” for my sense of democracy. May I suggest instead using our collective power at the ballot box to get these ass-clowns out of office.

    • MinnesotaRush says:

      WarmongerInfidel .. thx for your post and service! My father was a 26 year Seabee and loved serving his Country, the Navy, and his fellow man.

      I went Coast Guard; but the “fighting Seabee’s” will ALWAYS have a special place in my heart!

      God bless you and yours.

  4. U NO HOO says:

    When does BHusseinMeister pass the law that says every American MUST buy a new Chrysler and/or GM car within the warranty period to keep the assembly line moving?

    Just aksing.

    I’m glad I just bought a new Ford.

    Feels good to be in a Ford again after all these years.

  5. Howard Roark says:

    Was 55% of the company and having their benefits and retirement guaranteed by the US taxpayer not enough?

    Right on, Steve. I love the way these union bosses sit on their asses all day, determining when real men and women who actually work should throw down their tools and do a walk out. There is SO much chance for corruption in the highest ranks of the UAW and other legacy unions, yet they pat themselves on the back and act like they’re good for common workers like myself, good for the company they bleed to death, and good for America.

    I’m eternally glad there were men like Ann Coulter’s father to bust up these jackals’ cushy lives.

  6. badcrow says:

    What can a concerned taxpayer do about such nonsense as this? It’s simple really, I won’t ever purchase an automobile from any American maker that is partially (and soon to be wholly) owned by the “G” or the union. That’s it. The quality and design of American cars is already substandard compared to world leader Toyota and others, so you can imagine what will happen to the American auto once the “G” starts to dictate design features and the union takes over the management of production. America’s auto industry will go the way of Great Britain, right into the toilet. I refuse to finance such a debacle, and anyone out there reading this who loves cars and cares about our nation should refuse as well. Don’t pay into the corruption and the system will starve for lack of cash. Just imagine it. Obammy and his union “army” nationalize the auto industry and a nation of free people refuse to buy the cars. If half of the people who need cars refused to buy anything made by the Obammy Autowerks (a message accompanied by an action) it would soon crash the companies. After the dust settles, the union will be broke and nationalization will be discredited. Americans will demand that the policies change back and real entrepeneurs will rise from the ashes to strive for excellence once again.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »